Galatians 2

Paul’s Introductory Argument for Justification by Faith 

In this section, Paul revealed more about the nature of the “other gospel” that certain “false brothers” (2:4) had introduced to the Galatian Christians.  Recalling an occasion where his friends and fellow apostles fell victim to some of the false practices, the apostle launched his case for justification by faith, the central argument of the letter. 

Not Running in Vain

With Barnabus and Titus

Vs. 1 - Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also.

In Galatians 1:18-19, Paul described a trip he made to Jerusalem three years after Jesus met him on the road to Damascus. Here he describes a second trip to Jerusalem, fourteen years later.

Remember Paul’s point from Galatians 1. He demonstrated that his gospel came by a revelation from Jesus and not from man, not even from the apostles in Jerusalem. Two visits to Jerusalem over 14 years demonstrated that Paul did not sit at the feet of the disciples of Jesus to learn the gospel.

Traveling with Paul to Jerusalem were both Barnabas (who was well respected among the leadership in Jerusalem according to Acts 4:36-37 and 11:22) and Titus (who was a Gentile convert).      - David Guzik

Titus was a Gentile believer and one of Paul’s faithful disciples in ministry. When Paul wrote this epistle, Titus was apparently living in Antioch. Later Titus represented Paul to the Corinthian church (2 Corinthians 2:12-13; 2 Corinthians 7:5-16), to the Jerusalem church (2 Corinthians 8:6-24; 2 Corinthians 9:3-5; 2 Corinthians 12:18), and to the Cretan church (Titus 1:5).        - Thomas Constable

Before Church Leaders

Vs. 2 - I wanted to be sure I was not running, and had not been running, in vain.

In the preceding passage, Paul has proved the independence of his gospel; here he is concerned to prove that this independence is not anarchy and that his gospel is not something schismatic and sectarian, but no other than the faith delivered to the Church.                     - William Barclay

Paul’s fear that he "should run . . . in vain" may seem to refer to concern that the Jerusalem apostles upon hearing what he had been preaching would disapprove of it. However, this cannot have been his fear. He previously said he was absolutely certain that his gospel, which came to him by special revelation, was the true gospel (Galatians 1:11-12). He also said he did not need to get it approved by the other apostles (Galatians 1:16-17). It seems rather that Paul feared that if he did not contact the Jerusalem apostles (Peter, James, and John), his critics might undermine his evangelistic work. They might point to the fact that Paul had had no fellowship with the Jerusalem apostles.              - Thomas Constable

Vs 6-7 - Now from those recognized as important (what they once were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to me. On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel

Vs. 9 - When James, Cephas, and John—those recognized as pillars—acknowledged the grace that had been given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to me and Barnabas

Paul explained that he had not previously needed the approval of church leaders in Jerusalem but finally decided to meet with them when a controversy (not yet fully explained) arose with certain “false brothers” (vs. 4). At this time, the apostle felt the need for an acknowledgment of agreement and unity.  

This trip to Jerusalem is most likely the one mentioned in Acts 11:27-30, when Paul brought a gift from Christians in other cities to the Christians in Jerusalem who suffered under famine. When Paul was in Jerusalem at this time, he assured the leaders there that he was obedient to God in his presentation of the gospel to the Gentiles.                   - David Guzik

Paul explained here that those men who were “recognized as pillars” of the Jerusalem church heard him out and “added nothing” to his understanding of the good news of Jesus.  Their apostolic approval proved important as Paul’s credibility was being questioned in Galatia. 

To The Gentiles

Vs. 7-8 - I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised, just as Peter was for the circumcised, since the one at work in Peter for an apostleship to the circumcised was also at work in me for the Gentiles.

Vs. 9 - we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

It was accepted that his (Paul’s) work lay in the non-Jewish world, and the work of Peter and James among the Jews. It is to be carefully noted that it is not a question of two different gospels being preached; it is a question of the same gospel being brought to two different spheres by different people specially qualified to do so.                - William Barclay

Compelling Gentiles to Live Like Jews

Titus

Vs. 3-4 - But not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. 

Up to this point in the letter, the way in which the Galatians were “turning away…to a different gospel” (Gal. 1:6) has been unspecified. Now it looks likely to involve circumcision, a conclusion that will be made certain by Galatians 5:2-3.         

Why is circumcision such a big issue? Many boys and men get circumcised, for many reasons, including purely medical ones. To answer this, it is worth looking at the next occurrence of “compel" (2:14), where Peter is accused of compelling the Gentiles to Judaize (Ioudaizein), that is, to adopt the way of life characteristic of Jews.  For Paul, Gentile circumcision is a central step in this process.  He sees circumcision as entailing an obligation to carry out Jewish law: “I testify again to every man who gets circumcised that he is under obligation to do the whole law” (Galatians 5:3).         -  Peter Oakes

At this point in the letter, with the mention of Titus (a Gentile) and circumcision (a Jewish identity marker) , we can begin to piece together the “other gospel” (Galatians 1:9) that Paul was seeking to refute in this letter.  It becomes clear, from this section, that the disputed matter was whether or not Gentiles, like Titus, needed to adopt or adhere to Jewish identity markers like circumcision in order to become a Christian. 

Luke recorded how the early church leaders grappled with this complicated and confusing issue in Acts 10-15 where the conflict finally culminated in a council and official written decision to be shared with the churches abroad (Acts 15:22-29). 

Acts 15:1-2 - Some men came down from Judea and began to teach the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom prescribed by Moses, you cannot be saved.” After Paul and Barnabas had engaged them in serious argument and debate, Paul and Barnabas and some others were appointed to go up to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem about this issue.

Paul briefly mentioned Titus here to demonstrate to his audience that the church leaders in Jerusalem did not insist that Titus become a Jewish convert in order to be accepted as a Christian.  Paul and the other apostles were in agreement about this matter. 

False Brothers

Vs. 4 - This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus in order to enslave us.

At this time, there was a contention rising over the place of Gentiles in the church. God used Peter to welcome Gentiles into the church in Acts 10. But some Christians from a Jewish background said that Gentiles could indeed be saved, if they made themselves Jews first and brought themselves under the Law of Moses. Their idea was that salvation in Jesus was only for the Jewish people, and Gentiles had to become Jews before they could become Christians.                 - David Guzik

Peter And Barnabas 

Vs. 14-15 - But when I saw that they were deviating from the truth of the gospel, I told Cephas in front of everyone, “If you, who are a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel Gentiles to live like Jews?”

Though Peter was previously in agreement with welcoming Gentiles into the church without bringing them under the Law of Moses (Acts 11:1-18, Galatians 2:9), when Peter came to Antioch (Paul’s home church), it was another story. He refused to associate with Gentile Christians once certain Jewish believers from Jerusalem came.

Peter had known that God did not require Gentiles to come under the Law of Moses for salvation. He learned this from the vision God gave him in Acts 10:10-16. He learned this from the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the Gentiles who believed (apart from being circumcised) in Acts 10:44-48. He learned this by the agreement of the other leaders of the church in Acts 11:1-18. Now, Peter turned back on all that he had known about the place of Gentiles in the church.                 - David Guzik

Peter Oakes speculates that both Peter and Barnabus could have unintentionally prioritized attendance to Jewish house churches over Gentile gatherings when “some men came down from Judea” to teach (Acts 15:1).  Either way, Paul considered the segregation to be a dangerous validation of the claims of the false gospel. 

It may be difficult for the modern, western reader to grasp the gravity of this conflict in the early days of Christianity.  But the matter of including both Jews and Gentiles (with all their varying beliefs and behaviors) into one gathering of Jesus followers was no simple task.  Jewish distinction from the Gentile world was not a minor cultural component.  Practices like circumcision, eating Kosher, and observing the Sabbath had been markers of God’s chosen people for millennia at this point.  These cultural distinctions were embedded into the fiber of Jewish life, and to suddenly disregard them as optional was, for many, an unthinkable conclusion. 

But Paul knew well that Peter had received visions from God, had witnessed Gentile conversions, and had become convinced of God’s new way of including Gentiles into the new covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34, Luke 22:20).  So he “called out” Peter for his failure to prioritize this truth and practice in Antioch.  He basically said, “Peter, I know for a fact that you have fellowship with Gentile Christians, so why are you acting like you don’t?  If you, as a Jew, have abandoned full adherence to the Jewish identity markers mandated in the Mosaic law, how are you now in agreement with these men who are trying to make the Gentiles adhere to them?” 

Faith Versus The Works of The Law

Some commentators note that the rest of chapter 2 is likely a continuation of Paul’s response to Peter.  In this section, the apostle introduced some new terms and began to lay out his biblical and logical case for why the message of these “false brothers” was actually in opposition to the gospel of Jesus.  But if we are to understand Paul here, we must first do our best to define his vocabulary as he understood it. 

Justified

Gallons of ink have been spilled in an effort to fully understand and explain Paul’s use of this term in relation to the gospel.  But the simplest, most common definition for “justified” in this passage seems to be “declared to be in a right relationship with God.” 

Paul often speaks of sinners being justified (GNB: put right with God). He uses the word in a legal sense, where he likens God’s act of justification to that of a judge who declares a person to be righteous, or in the right. To justify is the opposite of to condemn, which means to declare a person guilty, or in the wrong (cf. Deuteronomy 25:1; Matthew 12:37).           - Don Fleming

To be justified means to be declared righteous before God, that is, to enjoy a status or standing of being in a right relationship with God, of being accepted by him.        - Fung

Works of the Law

Most commentators define “works of the law” in this section as a reference to several prominent practices of Judaism such as circumcision, Sabbath-keeping, and dietary laws that would prevent Jews and Gentiles from eating together.  Paul argued here that any expectation for Gentile Christians to convert to Judaism by taking on Jewish identity markers like circumcision amounted to burdening them with keeping the entire Mosaic law.  

Grace - The Greek work “charis” is most often defined as unearned favor or enablement from God. 

Faith

Faith in Jesus Christ is not intellectual conviction only, but personal commitment. The expression in the middle of verse 16 is (literally) ‘we have believed into (eis) Christ Jesus.’ It is an act of committal, not just assenting to the fact that Jesus lived and died, but running to Him for refuge and calling on Him for mercy.         - John Stott

Justified by Faith

Vs. 15-16 - We are Jews by birth and not “Gentile sinners,” and yet because we know that a person is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we ourselves have believed in Christ Jesus. This was so that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no human being will be justified.

Paul began an argument here that will continue throughout the letter. In his view, Peter’s failure to emphasize Gentile and Jewish unity in the church was a dangerous oversight.  Whether or not he agreed with the “false brothers,” his actions appeared to validate their claims that Gentiles needed to adhere to Jewish laws and customs.  

So, Paul argued, “If we as Jews are aware that we have always come into a right relationship with God by our “faith” (trust, reliance, allegiance) in Him, why would we ask more of the Gentiles?  If we’ve always known that we are not justified by law-keeping, why would we now ask these Gentile believers to become law-keepers?” 

The implicit point of all this is that, if this is the case even for Christian Jews, it must also be the case for Christian Gentiles. Peter was therefore wrong to effectively compel the Gentiles to Judaize (2:14), and especially the Gentile Galatians would be wrong in accepting the call of Paul's opponents to adopt practice of the Jewish law.  

Paul categorizes this situation (Peter’s hypocrisy) alongside the actions of the “false brothers" who had sought Titus's circumcision. Like theirs, Peter's actions are seen as threatening “the truth of the gospel” (2:4-5). Why does Paul do this, using this conflict about eating together as the route into his argument about works of the law, especially circumcision?  In Galatians, unity in Christ is a crucial element in the idea of salvation. The oneness of Jew and Greek in Christ is at the climax of the argument (3:28).  This oneness in Christ makes the Christians the single Seed of Abraham and hence heirs, as promised (3:29).  Breaking that unity amounts to breaking Christian salvation.              - Peter Oakes

Vs. 21 - I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing.

Paul’s logic: If Mosaic law-keeping was necessary for justification, then there was no need for Jesus’ sacrificial death.  

Crucified with Christ

Vs. 19 - For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live for God.  

The Mosaic law could never be kept perfectly.  That is why it was accompanied by a sacrificial system for atonement of sin.  So, Paul said, the law, with all of its demands, condemned him.  It “killed” him.  But he goes on to say that he received spiritual life by faith in Jesus. 

Vs. 20 - I have been crucified with Christ, and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

Here the cross functions as the place of radical identification between the believer and Christ. In some sense, the believer undergoes the crucifixion alongside Christ. And coming to trust in Christ, the believer dies… and, in doing so, becomes identified with Christ, linked with Christ in such a close sense that Paul can say that “Christ is alive in” the believer (2:20) and the believer is “in Christ” (3:28).              - Peter Oakes